nope, i don't use it unless i absolutely have to, and i hardly ever trust it beyond the fact it's unrelyable.
Poll: Do you use or trust Wikipedia?
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
I think it's pretty useful for less-important things and trivia at the very least. I normally trust it for just about everything, because I don't experience a lot of mistakes there, but endless teachers drilling the whole "Wikipedia is bad" thing into your head can get you a bit paranoid.
I trust it to give me a very basic understanding of topics. Although for the last six years a guy who I went to high school with is apparently the inventor of some processor chip. If you search his name you'll actually find peoples papers who attribute the chip to him. I changed it once and the mods changed it right back to his name.
I trust the articles. More so then I would a random .com or .org without a credible source. People distrust it because it can be edited by just about anyone, but it's actually pretty accurate.
The whole "don't trust Wikipedia" maxim is largely perpetuated by people with little experience in research. I'm talking about the TV, Fast Food kind of person, bred on passive knowledge intake, who demands everything be delivered in the one shot or if otherwise, be rejected. Should we trust Wikipedia? Well, should we trust any publication? At least Wikipedia can be altered by the people. When an official source releases misinformation or falsities, there's little hope of that being changed at all. With Wikipedia, it is moderated constantly by users. I've seen some mistakes, but they do in fact get cleared up. And back to the kind of person I mentioned above - to disregard Wikipedia in such a blanket manner, is illogical. Read the Wiki article and then check the sources!. That's what you should be doing anyway. Knowledge from only one source, is always incomplete.
I trust it well enough. When something sounds dubious, I'll just check the citation.
The fact that I trust Wikipedia doesn't stop Jimmy Wales from being creepy as hell, though.
The fact that I trust Wikipedia doesn't stop Jimmy Wales from being creepy as hell, though.
They do that because of 1) an ingrained distrust by educational institutions for open sources, especially online (a Youth medium), and 2) because kids are generally lazy when it comes to research and they'll paraphrase a Wikipedia article and hand it in! Teachers want the kids to crack open one of those old things called "book", or at least one that doesn't have "RECIPES" or "Harry Pottter" on the cover. That means entering the frightening and uncool cave called "LIBRARY", in which, if the kids suck it up and learn it, valuable knowledge can be gained. Perhaps this is 3), but generally, despite the Net being a conduit for boundless information (unless you are Wikileaks or an "IP infringer", then there are some bounds, sadly), most people daily go to the same limited list of sources. These are usually on their favourite topics and hobbies. The "no Wikipedia" rule by teachers and professors is to force kids to obtain at least some form of useful literacy for study and research, rather than depending on Fast Food aquisition for everything.oreopizza47 said:
I trust it. I mean, I cant use it as a source for school, but i trust it. its gotten alot harder to just put what you want, and usually you can tell whats lies anyways. you know... unless you've suffered brain damage or something.
Yeah I trust it. Unfortunately my professors don't see it as a trusted source, but it is a good place to start when researching something. Plus, it cites its sources down at the bottom of the page so if you get some really good info from a wikipedia page just go to the source it got it from and cite that. Granted, research on a topic shouldn't only come from wikipedia, but you're a fool if you don't use it.
i do and i see it as a reliable source
all the information is cited and if it's not then it is indicated as such
malicious editing is few and far between in my experiences and as someone said earlier, it's a good starting point if nothing else
all the information is cited and if it's not then it is indicated as such
malicious editing is few and far between in my experiences and as someone said earlier, it's a good starting point if nothing else
Ye sure, lecturers tell you to avoid it like the plauge... fuck that.
I use the references it supplies not the actual wikipedia page itself (lecturers would have a heart attack if I cited wikipedia) still havent been slapped with the fail grade yet so its clearly doing something right.
According to the people who matter 'my lecturers (as they grade my papers)' it is getting better. Ive never had a problem with it though.
I use the references it supplies not the actual wikipedia page itself (lecturers would have a heart attack if I cited wikipedia) still havent been slapped with the fail grade yet so its clearly doing something right.
According to the people who matter 'my lecturers (as they grade my papers)' it is getting better. Ive never had a problem with it though.